Get Out There and Vote!

[njkate]

Originally Posted by Roselvr

I had to google the question - it was not written well & everyone I've spoken to voted no because they didn't know that yes meant no.

Vote Yes on Constitutional Amendment to Protect Your Unemployment Insurance Tax Dollars

Ballot Question Analysis (http://www.lwvnj.org/ballot_2010_q.shtml - broken link)

Reasons one might vote YES
# Passage will require that worker benefit funds be used for the purpose for which they are collected.
# Some of these worker benefit funds are currently in poor financial shape, in part because of the diversion of money collected for them. Passage would help avoid this problem in the future.

Reasons one might vote NO
# Passage will limit the ability of the Legislature to make decisions based on the State’s financial needs at any given time.
# This ballot measure does not address whether the amounts currently collected for these programs are sufficient to support the programs into the future, or whether the programs themselves should be reformed.

ACK must of been all those years in catholic school that drummed reading comprehension into me head.
I didn't have a hard time understanding the question and of course I voted yes on it.

That said it could have been written a bit more in "normal" terms

[Obrero]

Originally Posted by njkate

ACK must of been all those years in catholic school that drummed reading comprehension into me head.
I didn't have a hard time understanding the question and of course I voted yes on it.

That said it could have been written a bit more in "normal" terms

I agree. Even the "explanation" part was hard to understand. At least it passed though.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by njkate

ACK must of been all those years in catholic school that drummed reading comprehension into me head.
I didn't have a hard time understanding the question and of course I voted yes on it.

That said it could have been written a bit more in "normal" terms

I understood it, too, and I went to public school. I voted yes, as well.

They never write those things in normal terms. C'mon, it's the government.

[njkate]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

I understood it, too, and I went to public school. I voted yes, as well.

They never write those things in normal terms. C'mon, it's the government.

Perhaps they were trying to confuse people on this question...anyway the days of raiding funds like UI, disablility etc are over

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by njkate

I'm having a hard time figuring out why people had a difficult time understanding the question

The interpretive statement was worded "prohibits the state from collecting assessments" and I didn't know what they meant by that. They should have just said "taking money", that I would have understood

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

The interpretive statement was worded "prohibits the state from collecting assessments" and I didn't know what they meant by that. They should have just said "taking money", that I would have understood

Some state lawyer got paid big bucks to put "taking money" into code!

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

Some state lawyer got paid big bucks to put "taking money" into code!

Next years public question: "prohibits lawyers from writing interpretive statements for public questions..."

[njkate]

Originally Posted by ocnjgirl

Next years public question: "prohibits lawyers from writing interpretive statements for public questions..."

I agree as many did not vote on this question or answered it in a way they didn't want too...but thankfully it passed